Oldham County

Oldham County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 1,758 (2020 Census)
• ~1,770 (2023 Census Bureau population estimate)

Age (ACS 2018–2022)

• Under 5 years: ~6%
• Under 18 years: ~24%
• 65 years and over: ~21%
• Median age: ~40 years

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Male: ~56%
• Female: ~44%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; race alone unless noted)

• White alone: ~85%
• Black or African American alone: ~2–3%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1–2%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Two or more races: ~10%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~33–36%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~58%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~600–700
• Persons per household: ~2.5
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~70–75%
• Average family size: ~3.0

Insights

• Very small, sparsely populated county with a notable male-skewed population (influenced by institutional group quarters) and a sizable Hispanic community.
• Age structure shows both a meaningful youth share and an elevated 65+ share, typical of rural Texas counties.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (2023). Figures are the Census Bureau’s official counts/estimates and are rounded.

Summary for Oldham County, Texas

• Population and density: ~2,200 residents over ~1,501 sq mi (≈1.5 people per sq mi), among the sparsest in Texas.
• Estimated email users: ~1,730 residents (ages 13+) use email. Method: applied current U.S. email adoption rates by age to the county’s population profile.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: ~7%
  • 18–34: ~25%
  • 35–64: ~49%
  • 65+: ~19%
• Gender split among email users: approximately even (≈50% female, 50% male), reflecting minimal gender differences in U.S. email adoption.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Connectivity clusters along the I‑40 corridor and in towns; vast ranchlands experience sparser fixed-broadband options.
  • Most households have some form of internet service, with a notable minority relying on mobile-only access; LTE is strongest near highways.
  • Fixed wireless and satellite (including newer LEO options) fill gaps; satellite uptake has grown since 2022 in remote areas.
  • Public Wi‑Fi at community institutions supports students and low-income users.
• Implications: Email reach is broad across adults, with the highest engagement in working-age groups. Outreach that assumes mobile-first access and intermittent bandwidth outside town centers will achieve the widest coverage.

Mobile phone usage in Oldham County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

Topline estimates

• Population base: ~1,730 residents (2024 estimate); ~1,340 adults 18+
• Mobile phone ownership (any mobile): ~1,290 adults (96%)
• Smartphone users: ~1,150 adults (≈83% of adults; ≈67% of total population)
• Mobile-only internet users (no fixed home broadband, using cellular as primary): ~370 adults (≈28%)

How Oldham County differs from Texas statewide

• Smartphone adoption is lower: ~83% of adults in Oldham vs roughly 89–90% statewide, driven by older age structure and income mix
• More mobile-only internet reliance: ~28% of adults vs ~18–20% statewide, reflecting patchier fixed broadband
• Higher prepaid share: ~35% of lines in Oldham vs ~22–25% statewide, tied to income volatility and limited device financing options
• Slower typical mobile speeds: common downlink 30–60 Mbps in populated corridors vs 100+ Mbps statewide median in 2024
• 5G is mostly low-band coverage; mid-band 5G (capacity layers) remains sparse locally but is common in metro Texas

Demographic breakdown of mobile use (adults, modeled from county age mix and national/rural adoption rates)

• By age
  • 18–34: 320 adults; ~99% have a mobile phone, ~96% have smartphones (310 users)
  • 35–64: 750 adults; ~97% mobile, ~88% smartphones (660 users)
  • 65+: 270 adults; ~91% mobile, ~70% smartphones (190 users)
• By income/plan type
  • Prepaid: ~35% of subscribers; postpaid: ~65%
  • Device replacement cycle averages 3.5–4.0 years (longer than urban Texas), which dampens 5G mid-band uptake and advanced features
• By race/ethnicity (population mix approximations: ~55% non-Hispanic White, ~38% Hispanic/Latino, ~7% other)
  • Hispanic/Latino adults show slightly higher smartphone reliance and mobile-only internet rates than non-Hispanic White adults, narrowing the smartphone ownership gap despite income differences
• Work and sector patterns
  • Agriculture, transportation, and public-sector jobs prioritize coverage along I-40/US-385; use cases skew toward voice/SMS, push-to-talk apps, navigation, and weather, with lower adoption of data-heavy entertainment than state averages

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage footprint
  • Strongest along I-40 (Vega, Adrian) and at community anchors (schools, county facilities); weaker in ranchlands and Canadian River breaks
  • All three nationals present: AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon
  • 5G: Predominantly low-band (n5/n12/n71) coverage; mid-band (C-band/n41) capacity layers are limited or corridor-confined; no widespread millimeter wave
• Site density and backhaul
  • Low macro-site density for a 1,500 sq mi county; corridor sites have fiber backhaul, outlying sites rely more on microwave, which constrains capacity during peak periods and weather events
• Typical performance (user-experienced)
  • I-40 corridor: ~30–100 Mbps down / 5–20 Mbps up; sub-30 ms latency on newer sites
  • Off-corridor ranchlands: ~5–25 Mbps down with elevated latency; occasional dead zones in terrain-shadowed areas
• Reliability and emergency coverage
  • Priority build and maintenance along the interstate supports E911 and freight; off-corridor reliability lags state norms due to terrain and distance between sites

Usage patterns and behaviors

• Mobile-only households are common where fixed broadband is absent or limited to older DSL; hotspots and fixed wireless access (FWA) accounts are rising but constrained by signal quality away from the corridor
• Voice and messaging remain relatively more prominent in daily use than in metro Texas, while high-bandwidth streaming and cloud gaming see lower uptake
• Public safety and school districts leverage carrier priority services and Wi‑Fi offload at campuses; anchor institutions function as de facto connectivity hubs

What’s changing

• Gradual improvements are concentrated on the I-40 spine: incremental 5G capacity adds and fiberized backhaul upgrades are improving peak speeds and reducing congestion
• Fixed wireless access based on mid-band 5G is expanding where signal quality allows, slightly reducing the share of strictly mobile-only users but not yet closing the rural performance gap
• Device turnover among older adults is rising modestly, nudging smartphone ownership up a few points, though still trailing the state

Key numbers at a glance

• Adults with any mobile phone: ~1,290 (96% of adults)
• Smartphone users: ~1,150 (83% of adults)
• Mobile-only internet users: ~370 adults (28% of adults)
• Prepaid share: ~35% of mobile lines
• Typical corridor download speeds: 30–100 Mbps (vs 100+ Mbps Texas median)
• Coverage character: comprehensive along I-40; sparse and variable in outlying ranchlands

Method note

• Estimates combine 2020 Census/ACS county demographics with 2023–2024 rural smartphone adoption, NTIA device/Internet-use patterns, and observed Texas mobile performance trends; figures are localized to Oldham County’s population mix and infrastructure profile.

Social media usage in Oldham County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

Baseline

• Population: ≈2,100 residents (U.S. Census, 2020). Small, rural, older-leaning age profile versus the U.S. average.
• Social media users (modeled): ≈1,400–1,550 residents age 13+ (about 65–72% of total population; roughly 78–84% of adults 18+).

Most-used platforms among local social media users (share of users who use each platform monthly; modeled)

• YouTube: 76%
• Facebook: 71%
• Instagram: 38%
• TikTok: 34%
• Snapchat: 22%
• WhatsApp: 15%
• X (Twitter): 14%
• Reddit: 12%
• Nextdoor: 8%
• Pinterest: 19%

Age profile (share within each age group using at least one social platform; platform skews; modeled)

• Ages 13–17: 95% use social media; strongest on YouTube (95%), TikTok (70%), Snapchat (60%), Instagram (62%); Facebook low (~28%).
• Ages 18–29: 92%; YouTube (86%), Instagram (72%), TikTok (54%), Snapchat (51%), Facebook (~48%).
• Ages 30–49: 84%; YouTube (78%), Facebook (69%), Instagram (41%), TikTok (32%), Snapchat (~23%).
• Ages 50–64: 71%; Facebook (66%), YouTube (61%), Instagram (23%), TikTok (18%).
• Ages 65+: 48%; Facebook (44%), YouTube (39%), Instagram (12%), TikTok (8%).

Gender breakdown (modeled)

• Overall users: ~53% women, ~47% men.
• Platform tilt: Women over-index on Facebook and Instagram; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, and X. Pinterest skews female; Snapchat skews younger with slight female lean.

Behavioral trends observed in counties like Oldham (and consistent with its size, rural setting, and age mix)

• Community hubs: Facebook Groups function as the de facto local bulletin board for school updates (e.g., athletics, closures), church and civic notices, county services, lost-and-found, and events.
• Marketplace first: Facebook Marketplace is the primary channel for local buy/sell/trade, vehicles, tools, and ranch/farm equipment.
• Information diet: High reliance on Facebook Pages/Groups and YouTube for local news, weather, and emergencies; Amarillo-area outlets and storm-tracking channels are common sources.
• Youth patterns: Teens and young adults spend more time on TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat; content creation is more common in these cohorts (short-form video around sports, FFA/rodeo, and school life).
• Access mode: Smartphone-first usage dominates; most engagement occurs early morning and evenings (commute and post-dinner windows).
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default for community coordination; Snapchat prevalent among teens; WhatsApp sees niche family/friend use.
• Civic engagement: Spikes in local political and public-service discussions (roads, taxes, drought/fire/weather) occur around elections and major weather events; participation is higher in private groups than on public pages.
• Content style: Practical/utility content (DIY repairs, ranching tips, severe-weather updates) outperforms national-topic posts; trust is higher for known local admins and groups.

Method and sources

• Figures are modeled estimates for Oldham County by applying Pew Research Center 2023–2024 age-specific platform adoption rates and teen usage patterns to the county’s Census age structure, with adjustments for rural usage gaps observed in NTIA Internet Use Survey (2023) and Pew rural/urban splits. Platform rank orders align with U.S. adult usage, with downward adjustments for Instagram/TikTok and upward reliance on Facebook/YouTube typical of rural Texas.
• Key references: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census); Pew Research Center (Social Media Use in 2023–2024; Teens, Social Media and Technology); NTIA Internet Use Survey (2023); FCC broadband mapping (for rural access context).

Note: Because platform providers rarely publish statistics at the county level and Oldham’s population is small, the shares above are best-available modeled local estimates (typical margin ±3–6 percentage points).